A Literature Review on Leadership in the Early Years: Aline-Wendy Dunlop

This Literature Review updates the review undertaken in 2005 by Aline-Wendy Dunlop supported by Colleen Clinton. It is based on key documents, conference presentations, research studies and other relevant data published since 2000. A few key references prior to that date are included. An overall summary of findings is offered, supported by a précis of some key first-hand sources referred to in the summary.

Introduction

 

This literature review aimed to locate the national and international research and documentary evidence relating to leadership in the early years sector. A wide-ranging search was undertaken, including electronic databases and search engines such as ERIC, Google Scholar, a range of websites including research associations and government sites, as well as a trawl of printed and electronic journals on leadership and early years. The choice of material to include was based on clear management, leadership and early years criteria. As we found the literature to be limited, we approached particular authors known to have published in this area to enquire after further sources – this has allowed us to tap into a number of theses and unpublished papers: where we have done so we have relied on the research records of the authors as validation of the sources: their research methodology and a clear evidence base for any claims made was important. While articles in peer-reviewed journals form a major part of reviewed materials, there was much of interest to be found in conference papers, books, professional journals and research reports, and we have therefore included materials from these sources as well. We present an overview of findings, followed by key points to be drawn out of the review. We finish with a section which provides a summary of each of our sources.

 

Overview

‘Good leadership is critical to a successful school. Success comes from aiming high with the clear vision, ethos and communication that good leadership brings. We will act to support high quality school leadership and inspired, ambitious school communities.’

(Ambitious, Excellent Schools – Our Agenda for Action, Scottish Executive, 2004, p5)

 

The Scottish Executive states that it ‘sees the role of leadership in schools and the wider educational community growing in importance’ (Scottish Executive, 2005, p2). The importance the Executive attaches to leadership and development of leadership capacity is reflected in the leadership agenda set out in Ambitious, Excellent Schools (Scottish Executive, 2004a; Scottish Executive, 2005). These documents make the link between effective leadership, leadership development and pupils’ school success. The stated intention is that by assisting schools in their leadership work, not adding to their workload (Scottish Executive, 2005), schools will be more able to develop pupils’ ‘capacities as successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors to society’ (A Curriculum for Excellence, Scottish Executive, 2004).

 

This literature review reveals that before our new Scottish initiative to address the curriculum 3–18, leadership in the early years sector has been virtually ignored at governmental level – this is an international rather than a purely Scottish phenomenon, and is reflected most strongly in the growing literature on leadership in early childhood emerging from New Zealand (McLeod, 2003; Meade, 2003; Scrivens, 2003, 2004; Thornton, 2005). It should be acknowledged that the New Zealand context for early childhood services is different from our own. In Scotland since 2000 early childhood education has become a duty of provision on local authorities, and the connection with the statutory school sector is a long established one, whereas in New Zealand state provision of early childhood services is relatively new and not yet universal. Where experience converges is in the complex and different nature of leadership in early childhood by comparison with the statutory school sector, and the importance of early childhood services being managed in informed collaborative, co-operative and community-oriented ways.

 

Leadership in the early years assumes great importance in this context and earlier assumptions that a focus on early years leadership was unnecessary because of the existing team approaches which mark early childhood services can be seen through evidence reported in this review to be no longer tenable. Indeed, the academic sector in Scotland continues to respond to this need through provision of undergraduate and postgraduate early childhood (0–8) degrees (eg University of Strathclyde, BA in Childhood Practice, BA in Education and Social Services, and Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma and MSc in Early Childhood Studies). Such courses promote reflection, enquiry and self-evaluation, all qualities of effective leadership (Harris and Lambert, 2003), and provide important opportunities for leadership development. In England these have become more specific through the advent of the Early Excellence Centres, and opportunities such as the MA in Leadership and Management in Early Childhood (Whalley, 2003) and the National College for School Leadership (2005) courses. A few main texts also support practitioners, particularly Jillian Rodd’s book, now in its third edition (2005), and Sadek and Sadek (2004), whose book is specifically written for Vocational Qualifications’ Level 3 (practitioner) and 4 (lead practitioner) students and those working in management within a childcare setting.

 

The relationship between effective leadership and pupils’ achievement is strongly evidenced through school inspection. Effective leadership has a perceptible impact on pupils’ learning (HMIE, 2000). While leadership has been found to be central to successful schools, equally there is scope for improving the quality of that leadership (HMIE, 2000): managers often focused overly on the day-to-day without being strategic in the longer term. The complementary nature of leadership and management is often assumed; however, in the educational literature a distinction is clearly drawn: leadership is perceived to include vision, based on shared values. Leaders are better placed to provide both motivation and direction to colleagues (HMIE, 2000).

 

Key aims of SEED’s broad leadership programme include increased collaboration among the key groups who contribute to the development of leadership capacity in Scottish education and developing excellence and capacity building across the educational system. Leadership development priorities should be identified, innovation generated, expertise and new approaches developed in order to contribute to a general strengthening of leadership capacity (Scottish Executive, 2005).

 

This link between leadership and effective provision is also true for early childhood settings, where research indicates that leaders play an important part in the provision of quality services. Effective leadership has been found to be a key element of effective early childhood provision (Muijs et al, 2004; Harris et al, 2002; Rodd, 2005). Other factors that have contributed to the focus on leadership include pressure for increasing professionalisation and accountability from within and outside the profession (Rodd, 2005).

 

Definitions of Leadership in the Early Years

Traditionally leadership in the early years has been associated with individual skills characteristics and personal qualities in the leader (Nivala and Hujala, 2002). A more recent view of leadership is that it is not an isolated activity invested in a single person, but rather that a variety of people contribute to effective leadership, and that leadership is therefore distributed. If this is the case, then preparation for leadership has to go beyond individual management training since leadership capacities will need to be more widely developed in the team: how then can leadership qualities be developed? Currently in England the National College for School Leadership is actively promoting development opportunities. As part of its Community Leadership Strategy it has introduced the first national programme to address the needs of leaders within multi-agency early years settings. The new qualification is called the National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership (National College for School Leadership, 2005): it recognises that leadership in the early years has a distinctive focus, particularly as integrated services develop and mixed staffing models continue to be a feature of early childhood work.

 

A view that leadership is about personal attributes and therefore about a single person playing a leadership role into which is built notions of competition and power (Thornton, 2005) does not sit easily with the collaborative approaches upon which early childhood practice is predicated. Early years prior-to-school services are often non-hierarchical and most employees are women (Ebbeck and Waniganayake, 2003; Rodd, 2005). This fairly flat structure means that distributive leadership models tend to be preferred in early childhood settings, though the Pen Green website (Pen Green, 2005) asserts that if we are to transform children’s life chances this can only be done through ‘visionary leadership’.

 

The early childhood sector is growing and a vast majority of our families now take advantage of pre-school education (Scottish Executive, 2004a). Childcare and early education settings are diverse, including nursery classes, primary schools, private and voluntary settings (Dunlop, 2003; Muijs et al, 2004; Solly, 2003). These different settings often have contrasting philosophies, structures and a range of quality assurance models: Muijs et al (2004) report that they are inspected by different bodies. In Scotland there has been an integration of Care Commission and HMIE inspection through the joint inspection process.

 

A study conducted by Solly (2003) found that there was a difference in who was seen as a leader in various types of early childhood settings. In nursery classes, primary schools, private and voluntary settings, respondents saw the official leader (owner, headteacher) as the only leader, but responses from nursery schools and excellence centres gave broader interpretations. Early years educators interpret their leadership differently according to the setting in which they are based. For example, Osgood reports that private-sector providers were more likely to apply business principles to the management of their settings, while those managing voluntary-sector settings were much less comfortable with an entrepreneurial agenda (Osgood, 2004). Private nursery managers tend to have a less collaborative and community-centred approach to leadership because of fears of competition (Osgood, 2004) endangering making profits.

 

In a study of nursery teachers’ concepts of leadership conducted in the West of Scotland, nursery teachers working predominantly in nursery schools and nursery classes see themselves with a strong leadership obligation that is not always recognised by their managers: they draw a distinction between leadership and management (Dunlop, 2002; Dunlop, 2005). These teachers recognise distinctive areas of work on which they lead including teaching, planning, observing children, undertaking assessments, evaluation, identification of team development needs, record keeping, working with and reporting to parents, organising time, space and resources, and organisation of people. They also identify a responsibility to report to the head of establishment to keep that person informed of current work in the nursery class: this last activity is confined to teachers in nursery classes, as opposed to a nursery teacher in a free-standing nursery where the sole focus of effort is on early years provision. Nursery teachers reported a role ambiguity, as they were expected to perform a day-to-day role as both team members and team leaders whilst not being accorded a specific leadership or management role.

 

The early years workforce comprises a wide range of personnel, each with different experience, training and qualifications. Solly (2003) highlights the number of young and inexperienced staff working in the sector and emphasises that the specific leadership context is multi-professional, primarily female, and socially and culturally varied. In June 2004 a news release on the Review of the Early Years Workforce in Scotland showed that the number employed in the early years nursery sector had risen to over 30,000 people in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2004). Focusing on five key areas, this review aimed to:

 

• examine and define the role and responsibilities of staff in all areas of the early years and childcare workforce
• improve workforce planning, to ensure that there are adequate staff numbers in each area
• simplify and modernise the early years and childcare qualifications system
• provide greater opportunities for staff in one area of the workforce to move to another
• consider the potential implications of this work for pay and conditions.

 

Role definition is reported in the literature to be problematic in terms of leadership in the early years. The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project found a strong relationship between the ‘qualifications of the centre manager and quality of service provision in early childhood settings’ (Muijs et al, 2004, p7). The diversity of this workforce makes a particularly complex arena for leadership (Osgood, 2004; Rodd, 2005). Additionally there is a serious lack of leadership training for early childhood managers: it is likely that many are significantly under-prepared for this role. Research based on and drawing from the work of early childhood practitioners suggests that too often positions of leadership in early childhood settings tend to be held by ‘accidental leaders’ with minimal training to carry out their responsibilities (Ebbeck and Waniganayake, 2003; Rodd, 2005). Ebbeck and Waniganayake call for clear definitions of roles and lines of responsibility, and in turn explore ways in which obstacles to effective leadership and management can be identified and overcome.

 

Characteristics traditionally associated with effective early childhood leaders include kindness and warmth. The study conducted by Solly (2003) showed that parents who entrust their young children to staff must see them as warm and gentle, thereby adding to the perception that the early years phase is the phase before ‘real education’. Solly found that the early years phase appeared to educators and others outside as lacking academic rigour, based on the perception that society perceives the education of older children to be more difficult and more academically demanding. The huge range of qualifications, multi-professional career structure and conditions of service, together with the stigma of early years only being about ‘play’, may have created a divide between early years and later school education. In Scotland, where primary teachers have traditionally been trained to work with children aged 3–12 years, the current volume of teachers in initial teacher education (ITE) has led to difficulties in placing ITE students in pre-school settings staffed by qualified teachers: a situation exacerbated by government initiatives that have opened the door to a notion of teacher ‘presence’ that may not be full-time.

 

Leadership and Gender in the Early Years

Leadership in early years services very often (though not exclusively) resides in female heads of centre. The gender of leadership may be a way in which leadership in early childhood is set apart from other sectors of education. According to Rodd (2005), women have problems identifying the concept and need for leadership: they may lack understanding of what leadership may mean in an early childhood service. In this sector the concept of leadership can involve sets of reciprocal relationships (Dunlop, 2005) and these have more in common with the early childhood pedagogical approaches than with traditional business concepts of leadership. There is a view that suggests that leadership styles differ between male and female leaders: recent studies do not provide the evidence to support this (Muijs, 2004).

 

However, Solly (2003) found that the vast majority of early childhood leaders in her study thought there was a difference in leadership styles between their sector and others. A social constructivist model of learning is often advocated in early years, and Solly finds that early childhood leaders’ own positive learning dispositions enable others. Participants saw their strengths as advocacy, inspiration, passion and enthusiasm along with being a lifelong learner and having a team ethos (Solly, 2003).

 

In Osgood’s study the sample was almost exclusively female. They voiced concerns based on perceptions that government’s push towards commercial models of childcare management favoured masculinised entrepreneurialism over an ethic of care. The emphasis on caring amongst managers in early childhood settings was paramount. However, Osgood (2004) found that managers in early childhood settings believe that their commitment to care and to the local community and parents could embrace more commercial approaches provided these were feminised and took account of their emotional investment and commitment to work. They wish to enhance their professionalism, whilst maintaining an ethic of care and resisting a form of entrepreneurship that in their view might be detrimental to provision (Osgood, 2004) and overly masculinised. Past models and traditional leadership theories may not have been appropriate to the early childhood field in that they reflected a hierarchical, top-down, male-oriented orientation (Kagan and Bowman, 1997) mostly adopted from those used in the business world.

 

The majority of practitioners in Osgood’s studies thought that businesslike approaches to management were inappropriate in childcare. The importance of collaboration and mutual support was stressed and this is more in concert with new theories on leadership: in the voluntary sector this extended to managers of voluntary sector provision working within their own settings and with other provision to develop collaborative practices (Osgood, 2004). In these studies women saw the importance of ‘emotional’ management skills – essential in the nurturing environments which are children’s right. Many women in early childhood education thus feel that most ‘masculinised’ leadership models are inappropriate to early childhood education as they do not recognise and respect the collaborative aspect crucial to this phase (Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002). 

Leadership and Professionalism

Dalli (2005) in reflecting on professionalism in the early years highlights the importance of relationships and responsiveness in effective early childhood practice. She asserts that the discourse of early childhood professionals has changed from childcare workers to educators and that this is part of constructing a scholarly base for the early childhood profession. She voices ‘love’ as a legitimate part of early childhood practice. In arguing for a new definition of professionalism to fit early childhood work, by extension the implication is for new concepts of leadership as well. She conducted a survey of ethics and professionalism (2003) which aimed to establish a grounds-up definition of professionalism, and found three key themes in childcare teachers’ statements about what matters in professionalism in the early childhood field in New Zealand: these were pedagogy, professional knowledge and skills, and collaborative relationships including management. In this last theme teachers felt it was important to be able to demonstrate leadership by exhibiting management knowledge and skills, being able to articulate concerns in a confident manner, demonstrating a knowledge of current educational research, and being aware of the educational political environment.

 

Additionally, Scrivens, also working in New Zealand, highlights that women prefer a model of leadership which, citing Hall (1996), embraces ‘power for’ rather than ‘power over’ someone. Nevertheless, women in leadership roles appear both to be able to share leadership and to take the lead when required (Scrivens, 2002).

 

Effective Educational Leadership in Early Years – models and key aspects

Beyond early childhood there is a growing consensus about the methods and approaches which contribute to effective educational leadership development (Scottish Executive, 2005). There is a wide range of theories on leadership (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, ed, 2002). Many of the authors writing in Nivala and Hujala argue that leadership, change, collaboration and improvement will happen only if there is interaction between leaders and followers. Leadership is realised in relationships between the leader and the followers and is not just a personal quality but happens in a social context. Leaders set the standards and the expectations for others to follow. The more recent statements around educational leadership sit well with perceptions held within early childhood that effective early childhood leaders need characteristics and skills which are related to team work, motivation, support, role definition and goal setting (Rodd, 2005). Building relationships, shared decision-making and empowerment of others are seen as important characteristics of good leadership in early years (Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002).

 

According to Bloom (2000) early childhood leaders need to be competent in three key areas:

·      knowledge, including group dynamics, organisational theory, child development, and teaching strategies

·      skills, including technical, human and conceptual skills (eg budgeting)

·      attitudes, including moral purpose,

and should demonstrate the following characteristics:

·         being goal-oriented, using planning, assertiveness, vision, and confidence (this was a change from earlier research, where these factors had not been identified)

·         having good working relationships with staff, who participate in leadership

·         being responsive to parents’ needs and able to communicate with them.

Bloom’s three areas and key characteristics overlap significantly with the ways in which Dalli highlights that leadership in early childhood can be demonstrated. Although the importance of leadership across most educational levels is widely recognised and well researched, the research on leadership in early childhood settings is still limited. Furthermore, Muijs et al find that most of the leadership research in this area is more narrowly informed by theorising about early childhood contexts and qualities and avoiding the broader field of research studies (Muijs et al, 2004).

A clear definition of an early education leader does not exist although leadership conventionally has been equated with management. A need for a broader definition has arisen as responsibilities of early leaders have expanded. Professionals in the early years have viewed themselves first and foremost as educators and child developers. They have held a narrow view of their role, mainly as practitioners, and do not fully recognise that their roles have expanded to include financial and leadership responsibilities (Muijs et al, 2004; Rodd, 1998; Rodd, 2001; Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002; Morgan in Kagan and Bowman, 1997). By interpreting the meaning of activities, one can categorise them into five different frames: educational, caring, managing, practical and personal. (Rosemary and Puroila in Nivala and Hujala, 2002).

According to Solly (2003), we need to develop high-calibre leaders in the early years who can both ‘maintain’ and ‘enhance’, but studies (Rodd, 2005; Bloom, 1997, in Muijs et al, 2004) show that most leaders in early childhood settings in the UK found that roles most common to their work could be described as focusing more on maintenance than development; there was more emphasis on management than on leadership (Muijs et al, 2004). Scottish nursery teachers saw leadership as an essential element of their role while acknowledging that they did not themselves hold management positions (Dunlop, 2002). The concept of ‘lead-practitioner’ as someone who promotes shared values and ethos in early years is increasingly articulated in Scotland (Adams, 2005).

An important part of early childhood leadership is co-ordination between different players or interest groups (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, 2002), including family, school and community (Muijs et al, 2004; Osgood, 2004). These interest groups have their own view on early childhood education (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, 2002). Practitioners see themselves as contributing to the cohesion and strength of local communities (Osgood, 2004) and adopt collaborative approaches to management. There is a strong emphasis on working with parents in early childhood leadership (Muijs et al, 2004). However, leadership studies in New Zealand report a downplaying of the importance of this kind of work – a perspective that the EPPE project outcomes can be understood to refute.

 

As part of the International Leadership Project (ILP), a research project on leadership in early childhood context established between 1998 and 2000 by five countries including England, Nivala proposes a contextual leadership model in early childhood education, in which four contextual elements seem to be important for a successful leadership in the early years. These elements are: paradigms, actions, education in the substance meaning of early childhood education, and environment- it is asserted that the more the interest groups in early childhood education share the meaning of these elements, the better the everyday reality of leadership will function (Nivala in Nivala and Hujala, 2002).

 

The importance of community-orientated provision does not match with an entrepreneurial managerial approach (Osgood, 2004) nor with masculinist constructs of leadership associated with aggressiveness, forcefulness, competitiveness and independence (Scrivens in Nivala and Hujala, 2002). Kagan speaks of collaborative leadership, which fits with a systems theory and integrated services that conceptualises work across agencies and disciplines (Kagan, 1993).

Multi-agency working in early childhood requires co-ordination and the ability to deal with conflict (Muijs et al, 2004). Muijs et al cite an audit undertaken by Atkinson et al (2001, 2002), in which it was found that the key to success of early childhood programmes like Sure Start involved effective leadership and multi-agency work. The early childhood field is complex because of its diversity and scale but also because of the aspect of community leadership (Muijs et al, 2004; Waniganayake in Nivala and Hujala, 2002). Kagan and Hallmark (2001) make a focus on community aspects of early childhood leadership; their model embraces five styles of leadership, shows the need for different types of leaders, and emphasises the need for training and development in these aspects:

• Community leadership
• Pedagogical leadership
• Administrative leadership
• Advocacy leadership
• Conceptual leadership.

 

More detail of these styles is given in the synopses of research that follow. Like Dalli (2003), they see a need for early years leaders to be educationally and politically aware. Additionally they see community leadership as a core capacity for development.

 

Shared leadership models, promoted in several studies of leadership within the sector, provide a contrast with the assumption in much of the literature that leadership is linked to a role, and open up the possibility that several people within a centre/service may be involved in leadership. Louise Hard (2004) has proposed the concept of formal and informal leaders. She suggests that the formal leader is recognised because of their position whereas the informal leader is one who shows leadership qualities even though they may not hold a recognised leadership position. This accords well with Scottish teachers’ concepts of leadership as reported by Dunlop (2002).

 

Janet Moyles’s publication Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years is a research-based text which draws from the project ‘The Effective Leadership and Management Scheme for the Early Years’. The project produced ELMS – a tool for those who are in leadership and management roles in early years settings so that they may evaluate their effectiveness. It is claimed that the purpose of evaluation of leadership and management is to ensure the best possible experiences for children and early educators; in other words, effective leadership and management are central to the quality agenda. Moyles highlights leadership qualities, management skills, professional skills and attributes, and personal characteristics and attitudes. She endorses Ebbeck and Waninganayake’s (2002) view that ‘there are few publicly acknowledged leaders and no set of common expectations for leaders in early childhood’. Moyles juxtaposes leadership and management, whereas Rodd (2005) distinguishes between them: her typology of what managers and leaders do includes the following aspects:

 

Managers plan, organise, co-ordinate and control, whereas leaders are typified as people who give direction, offer inspiration, build teamwork, set an example and gain acceptance. Often the literature reinforces the view that leadership and management are separate but related concepts.

 

In their Effective Leadership in the Early Years Study (ELEYS), Siraj-Blatchford and Manni (2006) highlight the effective leadership practices identified in the settings that took part in the study: 

• Identifying and articulating a collective vision
• Ensuring shared understandings, meanings and goals
• Effective communication
• Encouraging reflection
• Commitment to ongoing, professional development
• Monitoring and assessing practice
• Distributed leadership
• Building a learning community and team culture
• Encouraging and facilitating parent and community partnerships
• Leading and managing: striking the balance

Here the idea of striking a balance between leadership and management is highlighted. The work drew from the REPEY study – also part of the wider EPPE project.

 

Nupponen (2006a, 2006b) also considers that effective leadership is vital to quality services for young children. Effective leadership frameworks are needed as a starting point towards ensuring quality. Nupponen emphasises the complex external social environment in which early childhood settings operate (Bergin-Seers and Breen, 2002) and the consequent need for self- reflection. As elsewhere she finds that there has been little Australian research that focuses on the leadership and management role of heads (directors) of centre-based child care. National figures of children entering childcare is unavailable in Australia (OECD Country Note, 2001), but in Queensland where she was researching, more children attend private provision rather than community-managed centres. Her study included case studies of directors of child care centres, based on interviews with them. She concludes that training and experience in business management and leadership is needed in order to enhance the competence of centre managers.

 

Solly (2003) highlights enthusiasm, passion, inspiration and advocacy as leadership qualities. Whalley (2005) emphasises influence rather than authority as an important element of leadership. What comes through most sources is that there is a high potential for leadership activity in the field of early childhood. What is less clear in the literature is who provides quality leadership, and agreement about who might do so in early childhood services in the future is still more elusive and under-researched. The paucity of research into early childhood leadership in the UK is beginning to be addressed through studies led by Janet Moyles (2004) and Carol Aubrey (2007). The new Scottish workforce categories include ‘Lead Practitioner’ and herald a need for research into the roles played by the various professionals responsible for early childhood services, integrated services and schooling in Scotland.

 

There is however ample research cited to support the claim that the higher the quality of early childcare and education, the greater the contribution to positive learning outcomes for children (Vandell and Wolfe, 2000). Such evidence supports education and training initiatives that aim to raise the level of education of practitioners, and to include a leadership level in that training. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory offers the idea that children’s development takes place through the interrelationships between the various levels of environment they occupy and interactions with others who form part of their environment. It is possible to reflect that unless those out-of-home environments are led by practitioners with ‘formal leadership training or credentials’, quality is less likely to be sustained. Since most early childhood settings are presently led by practitioners who have lacked until now the opportunity to engage in leadership training – a crucial variable in ensuring quality (Nupponen, 2003b), a political commitment or culture is required, so creating the opportunity for improvement in the quality of early childhood services as newly trained leaders become agents for change.

 

Bella and Bloom (2003)’s study Zoom: The Impact of Early Childhood Leadership Training on Role Perceptions, Job Performance, and Career Decisions was conducted with a sample of 182 participants who took part in two different models of leadership training up until 2003. The study set out to look at the impact of the forms of training on role perceptions, job performance and career decisions in the sample group. Self-report questionnaires were used as well as follow-up interviews. The research questions guiding this study were clustered into four areas:

 

1. current job status and motivations for staying or in leaving the field
2. perceived short- and long-term outcomes from having participated in leadership training
3. subsequent professional development experiences and knowledge of professional development resources
4. feedback on the design and delivery of training.

 

Participants reported the link between their sense of empowerment following training, their consequent raised sense of self-esteem and the impact of both on their leadership role. This new confidence had been sustained and continued to allow participants to take on new challenges. Ratings of ‘novice’, ‘capable’ and ‘master’ were used in this study to provide data for change in feelings of competence. The percentage viewing themselves as ‘master’ changed from 10% to 50% as a result of the ‘Taking Charge of Change’ model of leadership training.

 

In this study further statistical analyses were undertaken to establish which background variables correlate strongly with participants’ perceptions of competence in a leadership role. It was found that perceptions of competence are linked most strongly to the level of education of the participant and less to years of experience either in the field or in an administrative role. New perspectives on their leadership role allowed individuals to move beyond ‘nitty-gritty’, day-to-day matters, and to adopt a more strategic role in which they developed a vision of what they wanted their service to become and a strong sense of what this meant in their community.

 

In terms of job performance, the results of the Zoom study (Bella and Bloom, 2003) found that respondents agreed they had improved their management skills, were more reflective about their leadership behaviour, and felt they had practical resources to help. In terms of career decisions, 86% remained working in early childhood, which seems to endorse the renewed focus leadership training brings, as well as the potential for change – ‘The rich empirical and anecdotal evidence from respondents provides compelling evidence of how leadership training can change the early childhood profession from the inside out and from the bottom up, through changes in early childhood educators themselves. The results of this study underscore the need for systematic, intensive, and relevant training focused on the unique needs of early childhood directors.’ (p2)

 

They noted four clusters of skills that helped them in their leadership role:

1. interpersonal communication skills
2. group facilitation skills (mostly conducting effective meetings)
3. decision-making skills (particularly participative management)
4. staff development skills.

 

Their findings match the findings from Sylva et al’s EPPE study in which it was found that the higher the qualifications of managers, the higher the quality of the curriculum experiences, the better the programme structure and the relationships with and between staff and parents (Sylva et al, 2004).

The need for training in leadership in the early years

The Standard for Headship in Scotland has set out the key aspects of professionalism and expertise which the Scottish education system requires of those who are appointed to headship (The Standard for Headship in Scotland – The Scottish Qualification for Headship, 2001). Take-up from the early childhood pre-sector in this scheme is reportedly low, with little active recruitment and some reporting of doubts about the relevance of the scheme to early years practice, by sponsoring authorities rather than by individual participants (Dunlop, 2004).

 

A lack of training for leaders in early childhood settings is highlighted by Muijs et al (2004) as leadership training and development has historically not been deemed necessary in the early childhood context. However, there is a demand for it; for example, about two thirds of the respondents in a study undertaken by Rodd (1997 in 2005) wanted specific training related to leadership and management issues. Many early childhood leaders do not feel prepared for the responsibilities of their role (Jorde-Bloom and Sheerer, 1992). Rodd (2001) sees early childhood leadership made up of three elements: technical knowledge and skills, including pedagogical and curriculum leadership; conceptual ability, which involves critical thinking and advocacy; and interpersonal skills. Rodd suggests that these elements can be developed through training. Paula Jorde Bloom (2003, p5) uses a similar framework to Rodd when she describes ‘the technical, human and conceptual skills that define effective leadership’. She further categorises these skills into four areas: communication skills; decision-making and problem-solving skills; interpersonal skills; and organisational skills. Bloom comments that defining leadership in terms of skills broadens the view of leadership to include those outside specific leadership positions.

 

Training is essential to provide relevant knowledge and skills for leadership roles in early years services (Dunlop, 2002; Sylva et al, 2002). Data from the 12 case study settings in the Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) research project found a strong relationship between the qualifications and training of the centre manager and quality of service provision in early childhood settings (Sylva et al, 2004). These centres revealed ‘strong leadership and long serving staff’ (p35). All managers were reported as taking a strong lead, particularly in the areas of curriculum, planning, educational focus, adult-child interaction and the engagement of children in learning. Additionally ‘In most of the settings the strong leadership was characterised by a strong philosophy that was shared by everyone working in the centre’ (p35). The strong relationship between the childcare/education qualifications of the leader/manager and the effectiveness of the EPPE settings revealed in Sylva et al’s work supports a view that those who manage and lead early years services should have high level qualifications: in view of these research findings a case is being argued in England for having trained teachers in leadership positions (Muijs et al, 2004).

 

Early childhood managers make an enormous commitment to the profession and are willing to make personal sacrifices, ie low pay, long hours and absence of benefits (Osgood, 2004). However, despite the lack of reward and limited training opportunities available for the leadership role, many early childhood professionals want to heighten their levels of professionalism and aspire to becoming a leader in their field (Osgood, 2004; Rodd, 2005).

 

Specific training programmes are now being developed; however, they are small-scale (Muijs et al, 2004). Where training is provided, effects appear positive (Muijs et al, 2004; Jorde-Bloom and Sheerer, 1992). Whalley’s team at Pen Green leads the National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership.

 

 

Relating Early Childhood Leadership to the Early Years of Primary School

 

Hard and O’Gorman’s work is included in this Leadership Review as it resonates with current developments in the Early Level of Curriculum for Excellence 3–18 to introduce active learning into Primary 1. Writing about developments in Queensland, Australia, where a full-time Preparatory Year has been introduced to replace the former part-time pre-school provision, Hard and O’Gorman’s discussions have centred around how their Early Years Curriculum, which is play-based, might influence the nature of schooling in early primary. Tied into such discussions is the role the early childhood world might play in leadership of change in early primary schooling. The two research studies that inform Hard and O’Gorman’s article are reported in the ‘Sources Reviewed’ section that follows.

 

These studies find that the creation of full-time preparatory classes within primary schools is allowing greater interaction between early educators, the possibility of greater movement of staff between sectors, and promotion of a greater interrelationship between different pedagogies. The balance of ‘child-responsive practices’ and ‘teacher-directed whole group approaches’ (p52) is interrogated. Early childhood approaches are defined by the researchers as ‘active learning, child initiation, the use of concrete materials and real life learning opportunities underpinned by the scope for children to exercise choice’ (p52). These terms link to the Scottish Early Level definition of active learning as:

 

·         Spontaneous play

·         Planned, purposeful play

·         Investigating and exploring

·         Events and life experiences

·         Focused learning and teaching

 

and to the view that in the early primary school active learning might be:

 

‘A true building on experiences in nursery. Hands-on independent play with

appropriate skilled intervention/teaching.’

 

‘Children learn by doing, thinking, exploring, through quality interaction,

intervention and relationships, founded on children’s interests and abilities across a variety of contexts. All combining to building the four capacities for each child.’

 

‘Environments that offer differential play and challenge, staff who are well

informed and able to challenge learning, child-centred and building on

previous experiences, fun absolutely essential, children planning and evaluating their learning.’

 

                           (Building the Curriculum 2, 2007, p6)

 

 

A broad agreement about what constitutes ‘active learning’ seems to emerge. In the Queensland study the importance of leadership of early years pre-primary (preparatory) and early primary education being undertaken by professionals with early childhood qualifications emerges strongly, as does the need for those professionals who would promote an early childhood philosophy to grasp the opportunity to influence primary school developments through their leadership: Hard and O’Gorman write of ‘the interplay of school reform and leadership, and its particular relationship to the ECEC field’ (p54). They see early childhood leadership as both challenging and contentious.

 

Hard and O’Gorman cite a number of authors as they consider the leadership challenge, including MacBeath (2004), Lingard et al (2003) and Stamopolous (2003) to emphasise the ambiguities of leadership, leadership and learning links, and the association of good leadership and change, respectively (p55). The importance of those providing leadership of early childhood settings attached to primary schools having a strong knowledge and understanding of the early levels of the curriculum is emphasised by Stamopolous, who writes of specialised staff and resolution of philosophical differences; she states: ‘Inadequate leadership may have serious implications for program quality, accountability, student learning and staff training’ (p200). In the Scottish case this could translate firstly to encouraging early childhood educators to consider the co-operation they might offer in terms of distributed leadership to their colleagues in early primary education as ‘purposeful well planned play’ becomes a reality; secondly it points to the need for primary school heads having a strong knowledge of the Early Level 3–6 if they are going to provide effective and appropriate leadership for that stage of education at a time of curriculum reform.

 

Hard (2005) writes of two concepts that may be helpful as we consider leadership for the Early Level in Scotland: interpreted professional identity, and interpreted leadership capacity. The first is how early childhood professionals perceive themselves – in the light of how others perceive them. For some early childhood practitioners the message that working with the youngest children is not as highly regarded as working with older children, and that the status afforded to early childhood workers is low, influences their professional identity negatively. The second concept – interpreted leadership capacity – refers to the ways in which these same professionals view their own capacity to lead. Hard claims these two concepts are interwoven, and that study participants conceived of leadership in early childhood as a shared and team-based process. Hard refers to participants’ understandings of leadership as a ‘discourse of niceness’ and suggests that this discourse militates against leaders standing out. She and O’Gorman (p58) recommend four areas of knowledge that are essential if early childhood leaders are going to be able to relate to the early years of primary and share approaches:

 

• Know yourself – what skills and knowledge do I have and what is my leadership capacity?
• Know your field – what do I know about leadership in an ECEC setting and can I use it in a school setting?
• Know your context – what is the school setting like and how is leadership enacted?
• Know your challenge – what do I want to articulate and what do I value?

 

The Wider Leadership Literature

If we look beyond early childhood literature much has been written about school leadership and wider educational leadership. In a comprehensive review of successful school leadership, the authors claim that a great deal is known about leadership behaviours and practices: there is an abundant literature on what constitutes good leadership in education (Leithwood et al, 2006). Leithwood et al write about ‘core leadership practices’ which are: setting directions; developing people; redesigning the organisation; and managing the teaching programme (p22–23). They offer a warning that ‘We have instructional leadership, transformational leadership, moral leadership, constructivist leadership, servant leadership, cultural leadership, and primal leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee, 2002). A few of these qualify as leadership theories and several are actually tested leadership theories. But most are actually just slogans’ (p7), rather than conceptually coherent ideas supported by evidence that shows the effects of such approaches on pupils and schools.

 

Different types of research evidence exist on educational leadership – case studies, large-scale quantitative studies of leadership effects, similarly large-scale studies of specific leadership practices, a literature on pupil engagement in relation to leadership, and leadership effects at the school and district level. The literature on leadership focuses more on the values, beliefs, skills and knowledge held by or perceived to be important for good leadership, rather than on actual leadership practices. Leithwood et al warn in particular against unwarranted assumptions made about leadership that they find are evident in leadership standards which list skills, dispositions and knowledge that are assumed to be necessary for effective leadership – the authors claim that the literature on leadership says much less about what is needed for successful leadership and a great deal more about effective leadership practices. They highlight the lack of published empirical studies on teacher leadership and distributed leadership and suggest that ‘both teacher leadership and distributed leadership qualify as movements driven much more by philosophy and democratic values than by evidence that pupils actually learn more if a larger proportion of school leadership comes from non-traditional sources’ (p9). Leithwood et al also question the concept of ‘leaderfulness’ (Sergiovanni, 1999) and are critical of the idea of ‘the more leadership the better’ and that ‘everyone is a leader’.

 

In his book The Motivated School (2003), the Scottish educational psychologist Alan McLean writes about leadership, and its importance in developing a motivating school. In writing of the ways in which leaders ‘download’ their mindsets to staff, he asserts that the principles can be applied equally to motivating colleagues and to working with parents. In referring to four ‘drivers’, McLean argues that managers may move from a control culture to a focus on self-motivation in colleagues that encourages an optimistic view about learning. Heads of lower performing schools have a ‘more rigid dissonant style’ by comparison with heads of high performance schools, who are more likely to take on a ‘flexible and resonant style’ (p115). Engagement, stimulation, structure and feedback form the basis of change. He asserts that where leadership engages staff successfully it is transformational in nature, and asks the following questions:

 

What kinds of engagement might characterise transformational leadership?

 

What kinds of stimulation might characterise transformational leadership?

 

What kinds of structures might characterise transformational leadership?

 

What kinds of dialogue and feedback might characterise transformational leadership?

 

According to the Yukl and Chavez (2002) evidence, the most influential tactics are rational persuasion, consultation, collaboration and inspirational appeal; these are tactics embedded in most conceptions of transformational leadership, and rely too on trust as a basis.

 

Links can be made between distributed leadership and democratic leadership (Woods, 2004). The one is characterised by action at all levels on a basis of direction-setting strategies, the other, democratic leadership, implies consultation and participation.

 

The existing literature reveals overlaps between several forms of leadership identified, for example: shared leadership (Pearce and Conger, 2003), collaborative leadership (Wallace, 2002), democratic leadership (Woods, 2004) and participative leadership (Vroom and Yago, 1998) – all leadership concepts cited in Leithwood et al (p47–48). ‘This accumulation of allied concepts means that distributed leadership has sometimes been used as a shorthand way to describe any form of devolved, shared or dispersed leadership practice in schools. It is this catch all use of the term that has resulted in both the misrepresentation of the idea and the common misunderstanding that distributed leadership means that everyone leads (Bennett et al, 2003)’, rather than it meaning that the form of leadership practice is distributed beyond the single hierarchical leader or manager. Leithwood et al find that the evidence as a whole points to leadership having a very significant effect on two elements – the quality of pupil learning and the quality of school organisation. They write about the strengths of transformational leadership.

Many definitions of leadership exist. However, none is clearly defined for early childhood practice. If 'Future leaders need to be proactive rather than reactive' (Bass, 2000, p22), then not only is training necessary but also a theoretical understanding of concepts of leadership. Theories of leadership such as Transformational Leadership (Bass, 1985), Contextual Leadership (Kagan and Hallmark, 2001), Shared Leadership (Fletcher and Kaufer, 2003), and Distributive Leadership (Harris et al, 2002) that can be considered when looking at leadership within early childhood services. Nupponen (2006) finds that transformational leadership and distributed leadership are concepts suited to early childhood contexts; transformational leaders recognise that people are motivated less by cognitive factors and more by affective factors (Crawford, 2003). Their approach is empowering as it motivates people to make their own decisions and take responsibility. By contrast, shared leadership embeds leadership within the social system of the setting; here teamwork and the group predominates rather than the individual (Locke, 2003). Both seem to be valid concepts for leadership in the early years.

 

Conclusions

Early childhood education and care has received unparalleled political attention in the last decade and remains in the vanguard of current government policy. This is accompanied by a need to evaluate the effectiveness of such attention and expenditure. This review of the literature makes a clear case for a relationship between appropriate leadership in early years services and the effectiveness of those services: this means that two initiatives should be to the fore – the investigation of early years leadership practice in Scotland, and the development of sound leadership training, which could be more widely embedded in undergraduate and postgraduate early childhood courses.

 

Relating early childhood leadership to current developments in Scotland means thinking about leadership in the context of A Curriculum for Excellence (Scottish Executive, 2004c, 2006a, 2006b), the National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce (Scottish Executive, 2006c), Guidance on Involvement of Teachers in Pre-school Education (Scottish Executive Education Department, 2002), reports such as A Literature Review of Models of Curriculum Change (Dunlop et al, 2007) and A Literature Review of Models of Curriculum Architecture (Dunlop et al, 2007), Improving Scottish Education (HM Inspectorate of Education, 2006), and the Early Years Parliamentary Inquiry (Scottish Parliament, 2006).

 

Improving Scottish Education draws renewed attention to leadership in the pre-school sector and states that the quality of leadership needs to be improved, particularly in a substantial proportion of centres in the private and voluntary sectors. Across all pre-school settings, managers/headteachers should more consistently focus their leadership on improving the quality of children’s learning and the skills of staff in promoting it.

 

The Early Years Parliamentary Inquiry (August 2006) sets out a 10-year vision for universal care and education for Scotland’s children:

‘In ten years time, we want Scotland to have an early years sector that gives all children the best possible start in life, that values and develops them and is aspired to by the rest of the world.’

It also states:

‘We endorse the need for upskilling the early years workforce as part of the same agenda as our call for an expansion of the number of teachers into disadvantaged areas. We want to see qualification and skill levels driven upwards as research indicates that this is likely to result in better outcomes for children, especially in disadvantaged areas.’

 

The National Review of the Early Years Workforce promotes a central leadership role for the lead practitioner/manager of a service, as shown in the Roles and Responsibilities Framework. The lead practitioner/manager has a role in, for example: assisting their staff to appreciate how they, as an individual and a service, are contributing to the Vision for children (see Annex A); facilitating partnership working with other occupational groups; and encouraging, advising and mentoring staff to develop their own skills and knowledge.

 

The early years research studies reported show leadership in early childhood to be very complex and the need for role clarity towards effective leadership as an area for development – as regardless of the form of childcare and early education the parents choose, the needs of the child remain the same (Rodd, 2005). For the range of early childhood services to be equally valued and effective, good leadership is essential.

 

Some key issues and key questions arise as a result of this review. Key questions are:

 

What do successful leaders do?

How are their practices distributed?

What is the source of successful leadership?

How do good leadership practices transform children’s experiences?

Key Points emerging from the literature on Leadership in the Early Years

 

Leadership in early years practice is not clearly defined.

 

Many studies have explored leadership as a ‘micro concept’– investigating leaders themselves or the immediate environments in which they work, rather than viewing leadership as a cultural system.

 

Leadership is a key element of quality early childhood provision.

 

Leadership views of workers in the early childhood sector nationally and internationally are consistently reported to be unclear.

 

Leadership is seen to be complex.

 

Leadership is relatively unexplored in early childhood.

 

Leadership is an ‘accidental’ rather than a thought-through idea.

 

There is a lack of research activity and a lack of leadership development in early childhood.

 

The transition to a leadership role is isolating and challenging to early years practitioners.

 

The early childhood sector needs a contextual model of leadership, since it differs in nature, ideals, philosophies and curriculum from other forms of education.

 

Leadership models such as transformational leadership and shared leadership link well to a contextual model for early childhood.

 

The significance of leadership in the context of early childhood services should not be underestimated given the documented importance of early childhood experience to later school success.

 

In the context of the Early Level of Curriculum for Excellence, early childhood leaders could espouse a potential leadership role in relation to active learning in the early years.

 

Traditionally the guidance, supervision and mentoring of staff are not linked well to the leadership role in early childhood.

 

Leadership approaches are more strongly developed in ‘stand-alone’ services than in, for example, nursery classes, where role ambiguity dominates.

 

Leadership in early childhood embraces advocacy, community, collaborative and political dimensions.

 

Leadership models that are effective for early years are reciprocal, empowering for staff, parents and children, shared and distributed.

 

Sources reviewed

Of the many studies cited 20 or so are presented here in a little more detail as they develop some of the key points drawn out of the literature in this review.

 

Aubrey, C (2007), Leading and Managing in the Early Years, London: Sage Publications

 

In this book Carol Aubrey proposes that the early childhood context demands skilled and effective leadership. Her book is underpinned by research mainly undertaken in 2005, and draws on two principal sources – a British Educational Research Association (BERA) symposium paper presented in 2006 (Aubrey et al), and a research report (Dahl and Aubrey, 2005). The book offers early childhood practitioners a rich insight into the theory and practices of leadership.

 

Australian Journal of Early Childhood – Management and Leadership, 25 (1), March 2000

 

This themed edition of the Australian Journal of Early Childhood presents the theories and research behind practical leadership in early childhood settings.

It includes articles ranging from women's styles of leadership in the childcare sector to health promotion, postmodernist approaches to training and ethical leadership.

 

Contents:

 

·                     Editorial, Jacqueline Hayden and Helen Gibson

·                     Children's services: A vision for the future, Denise Fraser

·                     Women's models of leadership in the child care sector, Libby Henderson-Kelly and Barbara Pamphilon

·                     Leadership in child care centres: Is it just another job? Manjula Waniganayake, Romana Morda and Anthoula Kapsalakis

·                     A postmodernist approach to culturally grounded training in early childhood care and development, Jessica Ball and Alan Pence

·                     Leadership and change: A dialogue of theory and practice, Elspeth Humphries and Beres Senden

·                     Health promotion: A new leadership role for early childhood professionals, Jacqueline Hayden and John J Macdonald

·                     Ethical leadership or leadership in ethics? Linda Newman

 

 

Boardman, M (2003), ‘Changing times: Changing challenges for early childhood leaders’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28 (2), pp 20–25

 

The last 10 years have brought changing roles for school leaders, teachers and their communities. The diversity and complexity of change within school management practices is recognised. Early childhood leaders in school settings have not been exempt from the impact of these changes as they have striven to accommodate rapid social and educational challenges within their leadership role. This article reports on a survey undertaken with Tasmanian early childhood teachers and leaders to investigate the nature and diversity of challenges faced by leaders with responsibilities in kindergarten to Grade 2 leadership. Analysis of the data, concerning the most challenging aspects of early childhood leadership, revealed that both teachers and leaders perceived there were significant, diverse and complex educational changes being faced by leaders. Also, there were pressing organisational dilemmas associated with time available for teaching and leading. Further, teachers perceived there were key challenges inherent in the area of leaders’ knowledge and relationships which were impacting negatively on the leadership provision in schools.

 

David, T (2003), What do we know about teaching young children? A professional user review of UK research based on the BERA Academic Review ‘Early Years Research: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Adult roles, Training and Professionalism’

 

This review set out to engage with the research undertaken in the UK in relation to pedagogy, curriculum, and adult roles, professional development, training and the workforce. The review focused on research about practice rather than policy. It highlighted the role that qualified teachers play and their influence on the pedagogy of differently qualified colleagues. They conclude that more research is needed on the different outcomes for children associated with different staff training. While they do not use the word leadership, they report that studies of the perceptions of staff about role and role difference suggest that staff often perceive themselves as doing the same job, whilst observational studies provide opposing data, revealing that qualified teachers engage with children in ways that focus on their cognitive development.

 

 

Duncan, J (2001–2002) Aiming away: New Zealand childcare supervisors' responses. Paper presented to the Eighth Early Childhood Convention, Palmerston North, 22–25 September, 2003

 

Researchers in New Zealand made a significant contribution to an International Leadership Project: Cross-cultural reflections of leadership in early childhood education – An ILP (International Leadership Project) reflective survey, which was based at Oulu University, Finland, and overseen by Professor Eeva Hujala, Dr Veijo Nivala and Anna-Maija Puroila. The survey was conducted in 18 countries over the years 2001–2002.

These countries were: Europe: Norway, Estonia, Germany, France (4); North and Middle America: Canada, Mexico (2); South America: Brazil, Uruguay (2); Oceana: New Zealand, Philippines (2); Asia: China, Taiwan, India, Japan, Malaysia (5); Africa: Tanzania, Namibia, South Africa (3).

The first part of this international project had been carried out examining childcare settings in Russia, Finland, USA, Australia, and the United Kingdom. This earlier phase of the research questioned supervisors as to what thought they did in these settings and the problems and issues for them. They also included focus group interviews to investigate what supervisors, parents, government officials and teacher educators actually thought leadership in childcare centres was. There have been several publications from this earlier phase (Hujala, and Puroila, 1998; Nivala and Hujala, 2002; Waniganayake, Morda, and Kapsalakis, 2000).

 

In this paper Duncan discusses preliminary findings drawn from data generated during the second phase of this international study, by asking 79 childcare practitioners ‘to identify the main aims of their service and then early childhood services in general’ (p1). The phase 2 aims were therefore to:

 

1.      investigate the leadership issues of early childhood centre supervisors in Aotearoa/New Zealand

2.      deepen the cultural understanding of leadership in early childhood education in different cultural contexts (by being part of an 18-country international reflective survey on leadership in early childhood).

 

The research questions which frame the international study and this research project centred around:

 

1. Has leadership in early childhood education a unique character and how is it defined?
2. How do leaders in early childhood settings define the work of their centres and themselves as a leader within that centre?
3. What support or supervision do early childhood leaders receive in their work?

 

Early childhood provision in New Zealand is separate from the statutory school sector, and respondents were therefore early childhood leaders in their own right, rather than, as is often the case in UK studies, staff deployed in early childhood services attached to the rest of school education and managed by primary school headteachers. All respondents were however qualified to degree level as early childhood teachers. Duncan reports in her discussion that the ‘notions of competent and confident learners’ seems to fit very well with the early childhood supervisors’ responses. Whilst some leaders did not mention children and families in their aims, others placed importance on children and families together through clear community aims: according to Duncan these differences in response may suggest a continuing ambivalence on the part of early childhood leaders about early childhood settings being a place for families as well as for children. Further she highlights Moss and Petrie’s work on ‘children’s spaces’ rather than ‘children’s services’ (Moss and Petrie, 2002) as significant.

 

 

Dunlop, A-W (2002), Scottish Nursery Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Paper presented at the Third Warwick International Early Years Conference, University of Warwick, March 18–20, 2002

 

A cohort of 176 nursery teachers studying on a specialist nursery education postgraduate certificate programme and in the DIPEE evening programme between 1998 and 2002 were sampled on their concepts of leadership in nursery education settings. Leadership in nursery education is a much debated concept which is firmly related to role definition. The nursery school teacher often finds clearer role definition than does the teacher in the nursery class attached to primary schools. It is likely that the work of the nursery teacher is better conceptualised and understood in settings where the raison d’être of the whole establishment is directed towards work with young children and their families, and the wellbeing, learning and development of those children is the main priority. Within nursery classes, which are often viewed as an ‘add-on’ to existing primary school provision, the purposes of nursery education are not always fully understood and the work can be seen as less important; there can be a sense of not being valued, and of being isolated. The advent of increased funding for pre-school education in Scotland from 1996 onwards brought renewed requests for specialist training for people working in pre-school settings.

 

During their Professional Development module students voiced many queries about the role of the nursery teacher, the differences and overlaps between a management and a leadership role, review of practice, undertaken with tutor support, and management of change. Discussions were particularly lively when the status, role and challenges of nursery teaching were the focus. Students had reported practice concerns about their widening role and the challenges of working with others. Numbers of them had expressed concern about not knowing what others expected of them, about juggling administrative and reporting roles, and about the amount and quality of time spent in being a teacher for children. As a result of such discussions during the Professional Development module delivery, it was decided to sample recent graduates of the Postgraduate Certificate in Early Education (nursery) offered at Strathclyde University on their concepts of nursery teacher role and of leadership issues. This paper reports the results of the survey and considers the implications for teaching on the Professional Development module of this postgraduate programme.

 

The language of teacher educators now revolves around such terms as reflective teaching, reflection in action, and teacher as researcher. There has been a shift from the general expectation that teachers should act as technical thinkers to an expectation that teachers need to operate as higher order or ‘better’ thinkers.

 

In this context teachers were sampled on their views. Key findings included the role variety and complexity of nursery teaching, a lack of clarity of role definition, and a gap between management expectations of nursery teachers in terms of the job they were expected to do and the status accorded. Respondents frequently stated ‘You’re told you’re just one of the team’, which they linked to a consequent ‘playing down’ of teachers’ education and training. The majority of respondents reported a view that the position they occupied was one of simultaneously being team member and team leader: in free-standing nursery schools and centres this was less ambiguous than in nursery classes, where being perceived of as simply one of the team led to ‘leadership without authority’ or ‘leadership without status’ whilst their primary school headteacher-managers were often perceived to occupy a position of ‘authority without knowledge’ vis à vis nursery education.

 

Dunlop, A-W, A (2005), Scottish Early Childhood Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Interim Report of Research in Progress, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde

 

The research reported in Dunlop (2002) is ongoing. An additional 60 teachers (n= 236) were added to the survey questionnaire sample at the end of their period of study. A 53% return rate allows insight into the images held by Scottish early childhood teachers of the ways in which they see themselves as leaders or managers in early childhood settings. During this time the rescinding of the Schools (Scotland) Code 1956 (2003) Item 2a has begun to have an impact, and not all local authorities remain committed to employing graduate teachers in nursery education on a full-time single-setting basis. It is increasingly common to have teachers employed on a ‘teacher presence’ or peripatetic basis, and returns suggest that teachers feel they are seen by others to have a leadership role in terms of children’s education, but not necessarily a team leadership role nor a managerial role in the wider context of early childhood provision. The HMIE Report Improving Scottish Education (HMIE, 2006) highlights the need for strong and effective leadership in children’s learning – perhaps teacher contribution remains important to ensure appropriate planning for children’s learning. As new qualifications are developed for early childhood practitioners, attention to the complementarity of different professional roles will be important.

 

 

Ebbeck, M, and Waniganayake, M (2003), Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow. Sydney: MacLennan and Petty

 

Ebbeck and Waniganayake (2003) provide a number of possible definitions of leadership and provide a number of theoretical models – they propose new ways of understanding leadership in early years provision. In their view leadership in early childhood has many faces: it is connected with administration and management: they therefore emphasise that effective leadership is informed by and dependent on defining and through definition, understanding the key concepts of administration, management and leadership. An integration of these elements would allow for improved leadership approaches.

 

Through addressing obstacles to effective leadership, the authors show why traditional leadership theories do not work in early childhood. They make the point that discussions about leadership have been too restricted by the traditional tendency to align leadership to the position of the manager of a setting. Waniganayake proposes a new model for distributive leadership – in her model she proposes that several people can simultaneously fulfil a leadership role in the same early childhood pre-school setting. In proposing a distributed leadership model for early childhood these researchers are exploring new ways of defining leadership in early childhood: their work reflects changing views of such leadership.

 

Hard, L, and O’Gorman, L (2007) ‘Push-Me or Pull-You’? An Opportunity for Early Childhood Leadership in the Implementation of Queensland’s Early Years Curriculum, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), 50–60

 

Two research projects inform this discussion: the first is a study of parental views of the newly introduced preparatory year which was accompanied by an upward adjustment of six months to the start of statutory schooling; the second looks at ideas of leadership held by 26 early childhood professionals including pre-school heads, early childhood students, academics, day care heads, family based day care providers and providers of support services to early childhood education and care. Subjects were drawn from four of the Australian territories. Interviews, focus groups and artefacts were used in the study and methods used a symbolic interactionism, with data analysis being informed by feminist theory. By considering both studies the authors create a space to think about the influence of early childhood philosophy upon early primary school practice: they consider the role played by early childhood leadership in promoting such a philosophy and find a link between personal-professional identity and enactment of a leadership role.

 

Hujala, E (2004), ‘Dimensions of Leadership in the Childcare Context’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), February 2004

 

This article presents ‘contextual leadership’ as a way to interrogate leadership issues in early childhood contexts. This theory provides a frame in which leadership is perceived of as socially constructed, situational and interpretive in nature. The purpose of the study reported was to establish how leadership is seen in context by those who work in childcare, so teasing out the roles, responsibilities and significance attached to leadership through sampling the views of those people who are involved with it. The focus group method was used to gather data for the study. The results showed that the context of the leadership role defines the role through the language used and the culture of the setting. In most focus group discussions leadership was described as ‘the position of a leader’. Centre directors were seen to have multiple role positions. Overall the study concluded that the tasks and duties connected to leadership on all contextual levels were unclear.

 

Kagan, S L, and Hallmark, L G (2001), ‘Cultivating leadership in early care and education’, Child Care Information Exchange, 140: 7–10

 

Community aspects of leadership are emphasised by Kagan and Hallmark, who suggest that leadership in the early years can take the following forms:

·      Community leadership, which connects early childhood education to the community through informing and constructing links among families, services, resources and the public and private sectors

·      Pedagogical leadership, forming a bridge between research and practice through disseminating new information and shaping agendas

·      Administrative leadership, which includes financial and personnel management

·      Advocacy leadership, creating a long-term vision of the future of early childhood education. This involves developing a good understanding of the field, legislative processes and the media, as well as being a skilled communicator

·      Conceptual leadership, which conceptualises early childhood leadership within the broader framework of social movements and change.

 

The authors stress that these different elements may require contrasting styles of leadership, and different types of leaders. They show that more training in these areas is needed. They see a strong political role for leaders in the early childhood sector, and envisage community leadership as a core competency.

 

Larkin E (1999), ‘The Transition from Direct Caregiver to Administrator in Early Childhood Education’, Child and Youth Care Forum, 28(1), February 1999, pp 21-32(12)

 

A summary of this paper is included though it precedes the date of review set at 2000, as it raises an issue not much touched upon elsewhere. The author addresses the fact that many managers and leaders in early childhood settings enter such roles with little formal preparation in educational leadership, and do not find the transition easy. The paper is based on a research study of 16 pre-school directors who moved into promoted positions after working as early childhood teachers. Their leadership role is recognised to be complex. Learning the role was at its most difficult in terms of their own lack of preparation, although respondents were not advocates of formal educational administration courses. The most challenging aspects of leadership were to do with professional isolation from a peer group. The separateness of their role caused them tension, especially as they were working to be responsive and nurturing at the same time as having to be an authority figure. The author concludes by recommending ways to improve the preparation of ‘child care administrators’. Someone to act as a sounding board and someone to act as a mentor would have been valuable assets as they learned their new roles. A combination of theoretical knowledge and practical experience was perceived to be helpful.

 

Moyles, J (2004), Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years, Maidenhead: Open University Press: McGraw-Hill Education

 

This book is based on a study of effective leadership and management in the early years. It conceptualises effective leadership and provides a typology for self-evaluation. The study focused on private and voluntary, maintained and non-maintained settings in three different authorities in the eastern region of England. Two consultants worked with 16 practising heads of settings. They worked on leadership qualities, management skills, professional attributes, and personal characteristics and attitudes. The focus on leadership and management drew from discussions, diaries, activities and the literature. Participants were able to consider their strengths and challenges and to identify their training needs.

 

Muijs, D, Aubrey, C, Harris, A, and Briggs, M (2004), ‘How do they manage? A review of the research on leadership in early childhood’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), 157–160

 

This article reviews the research on leadership in early childhood, highlighting the ‘paucity of research’ in a context where there is a heightened potential for leadership development. Reporting that effective leadership is widely held to influence outcomes for children, the authors find that research on leadership in the early childhood sector is limited. The authors attribute this lack of research in part to the context of early childhood itself, where role definitions even for those in leadership positions reinforce the need to be good practitioners, educators and ‘child developers’ first.

 

Muijs et al find that theorising about leadership in early childhood is limited and does not naturally connect to leadership theory from other educational sectors, nor to a market or business model. A distinctive early childhood approach to leadership is called for by the literature they have reviewed. Further they find that the complexity of the early childhood sector and recent developments in this field call strongly for effective leadership strategies, not least because of the evidence that children attending early childhood settings show better long-term outcomes. They report that a number of studies show that organisational climate is strongly related to leadership.

 

Nivala, V, and Hujala, E (2002) (eds), Leadership in Early Childhood Education, Cross Cultural Perspectives, Oulu, Finland: Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, University of Oulu

 

This book consists of presentations given at the Open Forum at the University of Oulu in March 2001. The book focuses on the contextual approach taken to leadership in early childhood. The articles presented are organised into three sections. The first section, ‘Introduction to leadership in early childhood education’, looks at leadership issues in general. The theoretical and the gender perspectives of leadership in early childhood are introduced. The second section, ‘Comparative perspectives to leadership’, introduces culturally based differences between the work of Finnish and Russian directors. It addresses the importance of the director's work in a childcare centre as well as the meaning of government regulations and administration. In the third section, ‘Leadership in the national context’ points out the significance, roles and responsibilities of day care directors in Finland. It also takes us into the middle of the dilemmas, tensions and constraints with which female early childhood leaders struggle in New Zealand. This section introduces good communication as the basis of leadership and asks whether anyone can become a leader with training. Finally, it challenges the managers and other practitioners of early years settings to promote a change to the present discourse of parental involvement.

 

Osgood J (2004), ‘Time to get down to business? The Responses of Early Years Practitioners to Entrepreneurial Approaches to Professionalism’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 5–24

This article looks at implications of policies introduced in the early childcare and education sector by the New Labour Government after its election in 1997. Included in the Government’s agenda are guidelines to embrace more commercial approaches to childcare management to ensure childcare services remain financially viable and sustainable. It is shown that the (almost entirely female) sample of childcare professionals in Osgood’s two studies are opposed to ‘these masculinized’, ‘new managerialized’ policies and that this commercial approach is deemed to be inappropriate in the early childhood sector. It is argued that the quality of childcare provision would suffer if business principles of profit making and competitiveness were applied. It is suggested that the top-down application of business approaches to the management of early childhood care and education settings does not do justice to the community-oriented, collaborative and caring nature of this sector.

 

The author articulates that recent government policies promote individualism and

competitiveness and that these are in conflict with the non-competitive, collaborative community-orientated approach adopted by early childhood practitioners. The study shows that private nursery managers tend to have a less collaborative and community-centred approach to leadership because of fears of competition endangering making profits. It was found that early childhood practitioners are highly dedicated to their profession and are willing to make sacrifices when it comes to pay and benefits. They are devoted to enhancing their professional skills and knowledge and are keen to attend training. An emphasis on care, enhancing child development and supporting local communities as opposed to developing business skills and making profit is paramount. Practitioners feel they play a significant role in the local community and adopting business approaches in the field would be detrimental to encouraging community-orientated practice. Although they contest the entrepreneurial policies favoured by the Government, practitioners feel powerless and think they are unable to resist adoption of commercial approaches in the long run.

 

Rogoff, B, Turkanis, C D, Bartlett, L (2001), ‘Community of learners; Adults provide leadership and encourage leadership in children as well, in Learning Together: Children and Adults in a School Community, New York: Oxford University Press

 

Rogoff et al highlight the importance of adults in a school community:

 

• Sharing a philosophy of practice: to establish what a leader and his or her team believe is important
• Considering the trade-offs between efficiency and the time and energy needed for collaborative learning and decision making
• Finding ways to use conflicting views and change as learning opportunities.

 

 

Scrivens, C (2001), Leadership in early childhood: National reflections. Paper

presented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education Annual

Conference, Christchurch, NZ, 5–8 December, 2001

 

Scrivens reports on a research study undertaken in New Zealand as part of the International Leadership Project which is being administered in 18 countries worldwide.

The author states that views documented in this report can be linked to other studies in early childhood leadership research; the early childhood leader is found to be supportive, collaborative and professional. In addition, early childhood professionals work in concert with an ethics of care; for children, staff, families and the community. This paper specifically documents on the responses of New Zealand early childcare leaders in relation to the following questions:

·         What do you see as the most important tasks and responsibilities of the leader?

·         How would you describe leadership in the context of an early childhood education service?

Replies to these questions could be divided into two overall clusters: support and teamwork and professionalism. The support and teamwork cluster covered both support for staff and support for parents and children. Many supervisors emphasise the importance of supporting staff, teamwork and working with parents. In connection with professionalism, the author cites James Raths, who speaks of three facets of professionalism: knowledge, colleagueship and advocacy. These aspects were manifest in the responses of supervisors in this study as value enhancing and developing their knowledge and skills. They deem their own and their staff’s personal and professional development to be of crucial importance to improving the quality of the service they provide. Working collaboratively is also referred to as being essential. Finally, advocacy for the centre’s children, families and staff is seen as imperative.

 

 

Scrivens, C, and Duncan, J (2003) What decisions? Whose decisions? Issues for team leaders in decision-making in New Zealand childcare centres. Paper presented at Our Child, The Future, Adelaide, Australia, 5–8 May 2003

 

Scrivens and Duncan report on their project which looks at the process and issues of decision-making by team leaders in New Zealand childcare centres. Early childhood leaders were asked two main questions:

·         Describe the decision-making that you are responsible for in your own centre.

·         Do you feel that you should have more responsibility or opportunity to make independent decisions concerning your service?

It was found that responses from leaders could be divided into three overarching categories: decisions concerning people (to be split up further into decisions about staff and about families/community); programmes, policies and practices, and plant.

Issues in the decision-making process that came to the fore were lack of time, limited understanding and difficult relationships with staff and parents.

It is suggested that knowledge about and involvement in the outcomes of the decisions is crucial for staff to be engaged in the decision-making process.

 

The report illustrates the wide range of decisions supervisors are involved in. As a result of the different parties involved (supervisors, staff, parents and community) it is suggested that leadership and decision-making in early childhood settings should have a more consultative nature rather than making decisions by using a consensus model and wanting to reach a compromise.

 

Siraj-Blatchford, I, Sylva, K, Muttock, S, Gilden, R, and Bell, D (2002), Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years, London: DfES

 

This report looks at the features which make for effective pedagogy in the early years, as found in the effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project (EPPE) (Sylva et al). All of the case study settings in this study were found to have sound leadership, good communications, and shared and consistent ways of working amongst the staff. Where parents became involved in educational leadership and worked with children’s learning at home, child outcomes were strong. The EPPE Project found a strong relationship between the qualifications of the centre manager and quality of service provision in early childhood settings.

 

Whalley, M (2002), Early years leaders involving parents in their children’s learning, Creative Waves. Discussion Paper on Future Schools, National College for School Leadership, presented at BERA, 2002

 

This paper explores the idea of parents and early years educators working together to benefit children’s development and learning. Parents are their child’s primary educator and are involved in and dedicated to their child’s development. When parents and early childhood professionals create an equal partnership in which their knowledge and experiences are shared, a stimulating and encouraging situation is created, which is advantageous for the child’s progress. Research evidence shows that knowledge and experiences of both parties are essential and should be seen as complementary. The author articulates that early care and education settings ought to support parental involvement; however, it is not always recognised by early childhood leaders in what way parents’ competencies can contribute to children’s learning.

The recent early years curriculum has encouraged both children and professionals to be more reflective on their own experiences. Subsequently, this National College for School Leadership research aimed at creating an understanding between parents and professionals and to develop an effective dialogue and partnership between them to make them reflect on one another’s competencies to enhance children’s learning.

The leaders involved in the project agreed that engaging parents in the early years was crucial to children’s achievements and in spite of some practical constraints in attending training and implementing interventions aimed at parental involvement, all had taken notice of significant improvements after doing so.

 

The report states that it is crucial for leaders and staff to be reflective and to be willing to cultivate their own practice. Improved co-operation of early childhood professionals with parents as part of that will mean a big step forward for children’s learning and development.

 

 

Whalley, M, Whitaker, P, Wyles, G, and Harris, P (2005), An Enquiry into the Impact of a Leadership Development Programme on Leaders of Integrated Early Years Centres, Derby: Pen Green

 

Innovators in the field of early childhood, Pen Green Research Centre, under the leadership of Margy Whalley, developed a Leadership Programme. This study investigates the effects that the programme had on those integrated centre leaders who took part. Further, the study sought to establish the impact of their learning on the centres they lead.

References

 

Adams, K (2005), Personal conversation

 

Aubrey, C (2007), Leading and Managing in the Early Years, London: Sage Publications

 

Australian Journal of Early Childhood (2000), Management and Leadership, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25 (1), March

 

Bass, B M (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectations, New York: Free Press

 

Bass, M (2000), ‘The future of leadership in learning organisations’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), pp 18–40

 

Bella, J, and Bloom, P J (2003), Zoom. The Impact of Early Childhood Leadership Training on Role Perceptions, Job Performance, and Career Decisions, The McCormick Tribune Foundation, The Illinois Department of Human Services, Wheeling, ILL: The Center for Early Childhood Leadership

 

Bennett, N, Harvey, J A, Wise, C, and Woods, P A (2003), Distributed leadership: A desk study. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org.uk/literaturereviews

 

Bergin-Seers, S, and Breen, J (2002), ‘The performance of long day care centres in rural and remote areas’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(1), pp 24–32

 

Boardman, M (2003), ‘Changing times: Changing challenges for early childhood leaders’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), pp 20–25

 

Bloom, P J (2000), ‘How do we define director competence?’, Child Care Information Exchange, 138, pp 13–18

 

Bloom, P J (2003), Leadership in action: How effective directors get things done, Lake Forest: New Horizons

 

Boyd, B, Dunlop, A-W, Mitchell, J, Seagraves, L, Clinton, C, and Deuchar, R (2008 forthcoming), Curriculum Architecture – a Literature Review. Report for The Scottish Executive Education Department to inform the implementation of A Curriculum for Excellence

 

Crawford, M (2003), ‘Inventive management and wise leadership’, in Bennett, N, Crawford, M, and Cartwright, M (eds), Effective educational leadership, London: Paul Chapman, pp 62–73

 

Dalli, C (2003), Professionalism in early childhood practice: thinking through the debates, Paper presented at the 13^th Annual Conference of the European Early Childhood Education Research Association, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 3–6 September 2003

 

Dalli, C (2005), Reflecting on Professionalism in Early Years Teaching: Relationships, Responsiveness and Curriculum, Early Years Lecture Series, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, 6 September 2005

 

David, T (2003), What do we know about teaching young children? A professional user review of UK research based on the BERA Academic Review, Early Years Research: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Adult Roles, Training and Professionalism

 

Duncan, J (2003), Aiming away: New Zealand childcare supervisors' responses, Paper presented to the Eighth Early Childhood Convention, Palmerston North, 22–25 September, 2003

 

Dunlop, A-W (2002), Scottish Nursery Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Paper presented at the Third Warwick International Early Years Conference, University of Warwick, 18–20 March, 2002

 

Dunlop, A-W (2005), Scottish Early Childhood Teachers’ Concepts of Leadership, Interim Report of Research in Progress, Glasgow: University of Strathclyde

 

Dunlop, A-W, Boyd, B, Skinner, D, Deuchar, R, Mitchell, J, and Smith, I (2008 forthcoming), A Literature Review of Models of Curriculum Change, Report for the Scottish Executive Education Department to inform the implementation of A Curriculum for Excellence

 

Ebbeck, M, and Waniganayake, M (2003), Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow, Sydney: MacLennan and Petty

 

Fletcher, J, and Kaufer, K (2003), ‘Shared leadership’, in Pearce, C, and Conger, J (eds), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, London: Sage, pp 21–47

 

Hard, L (2004), ‘How is leadership understood in early childhood education and care?’, Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(1), pp 123–131

 

Hard, L (2005), ‘Would the leaders in early childhood education and care please step forward?’, Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 12, pp 51–61

 

Hard, L, and O’Gorman, L (2007), ‘‘Push-Me or Pull-You’? An Opportunity for Early Childhood Leadership in the Implementation of Queensland’s Early Years Curriculum’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), pp 50–60

 

Harris, A, Day, C, Hadfield, M, Hopkins, D, Hargreaves, A, and Chapman, C (2002), Effective Leadership for School Improvement, London: Routledge

 

HM Inspectorate of Education (2000), Improving Leadership in Scottish Schools, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department. Retrieved on 3.11.05 from http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/ilss.pdf

 

HM Inspectorate of Education (2006), Improving Scottish Education, A report by HMIE on inspection and review 2002–2005, Livingston: HMIE

 

Hujala, E (2004), ‘Dimensions of Leadership in the Childcare Context’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(1), February

 

Jorde-Bloom, P, and Sheerer, M (1992), ‘The effect of leadership training on child care program quality’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, pp 579–594

 

Kagan, S L, and Hallmark, L G (2001), ‘Cultivating leadership in early care and education’, Child Care Information Exchange, 140, pp 7–10

 

Larkin E (1999), ‘The Transition from Direct Caregiver to Administrator in Early Childhood Education’, Child and Youth Care Forum, 28(1), February, pp 21–32(12)

 

Leithwood, K, Day, C, Sammons, P, Harris, A, and Hopkins, D (2006), Successful School Leadership – What it is and How it Influences Pupil Learning, Nottingham: DfES publications RR800

 

Lingard, B, Hayes, D, Mills, M, and Christie, P (2003), Leading Learning, Maidenhead: Open University Press

 

Locke, E (2003), ‘Leadership: Starting at the top’, in Pearce, C, and Conger, J (eds), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, London: Sage, pp 271–284

 

MacBeath, J (2004), The Leadership File: twenty-five definitions of leadership with activities to help you recognize their relevance to school practice, Melbourne: Hawker Brownlow Education

 

McLean, A (2003), The Motivated School, London: Paul Chapman Publishing

 

McLeod, L (2003), ‘Organisational culture: A closer look at its effect on children’, Early Education, (32), pp 17–23

 

Meade, A (2003), ECE Centres of innovation in New Zealand, Paper presented at the Leadership and Management in the Early Years Conference, Pen Green Leadership Centre, Corby, Northamptonshire, October 2003

 

Moyles, J (2004), Effective Leadership and Management in the Early Years, Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education

 

Muijs, D, Aubrey, C, Harris, A, and Briggs, M (2004), ‘How do they manage? A review of the research on leadership in early childhood’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(2), pp 157–160

 

National College for School Leadership (2005), retrieved on 20.10.05 from http://www.ncsl.org.uk/community_leadership/communityleadership-index.cfm

 

Nivala, V, and Hujala, E (eds) (2002), Leadership in early childhood education, Cross-cultural perspectives, Oulu, Finland: Department of Educational Sciences and Teacher Education, Early Childhood Education, University of Oulu, retrieved on 20.08.05 from http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514268539/isbn9514268539.pdf

 

Nupponen, H (2006a), ‘Framework for Developing Leadership Skills in Child Care Centres in Queensland, Australia’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(2), pp 146–161

 

Nupponen, H (2006b), ‘Leadership concepts and theories: Reflections for practice for early childhood directors’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(1), March 2006, pp 43–50

 

OECD (2001) Australia (OECD Country Note, 2001)

 

Osgood, J (2004), ‘Time to get down to business? The Responses of Early Years Practitioners to Entrepreneurial Approaches to Professionalism’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), pp 5–24

 

Pearce, C L, and Conger, J A (eds) (2003), Shared Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

 

Pen Green (2005). Retrieved on 30.10.05 from Publications http://www.pengreen.org

 

Rodd, J (2001), ‘Building leadership expertise of future early childhood professionals’, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 22, 9–12

 

Rodd, J (2005), Leadership in Early Childhood (3^rd edition), Maidenhead: Open University Press

 

Rogoff, B, Turkanis, C D, Bartlett, L (2001), ‘Community of learners; Adults provide leadership and encourage leadership in children as well’, in Learning Together: Children and Adults in a School Community, New York: Oxford University Press

 

Sadek, E, and Sadek, J (2004), Good Practice in Nursery Management (2^nd edition), Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes

 

Scottish Executive Education Department (2002), Guidance on Involvement of Teachers in Pre-school Education, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department

 

Scottish Executive (2004a), Ambitious, Excellent Schools – Our Agenda for Action, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department

 

Scottish Executive (2004b), Review of the early years workforce. Retrieved on 31.10.05 from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/06/5622

 

Scottish Executive (2004c), A Curriculum for Excellence: Ministerial Response, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

 

Scottish Executive (2005), Ambitious, Excellent Schools – Leadership, A Discussion Paper, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department

 

Scottish Executive (2006a), A Curriculum for Excellence, Progress and Proposals, A Paper from the Curriculum Review Programme Board, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

 

Scottish Executive (2006b), A Curriculum for Excellence, Building the Curriculum 1: The contribution of curriculum areas, Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland

 

Scottish Executive (2006c), National Review of the Early Years and Childcare Workforce. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive

 

Scottish Executive (2007), A Curriculum for Excellence, Building the Curriculum 3–18 (2), Active learning in the early years, Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland

 

Scottish Parliament (2006), Early Years Parliamentary Inquiry, Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament Education Committee

 

Scrivens, C (2001), Leadership in early childhood: National reflections, Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education Annual Conference, Christchurch, NZ, 5–8 December, 2001

 

Scrivens, C (2002a), ‘Redefining leadership for early childhood services’, Delta, 54 (1&2), pp 43–56

 

Scrivens, C (2002b), ‘Constructions of leadership: Does gender make a difference? – Perspectives from an English speaking country’, in Nivala, V, and Hujala, E, Leadership in Early Childhood Education, Cross Cultural Perspectives, Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu

 

Scrivens, C (2003), ‘Educational leadership: What might we learn from research in schools?’ Early Education, 31, 29–35

 

Scrivens, C (2004), Leadership in early childhood services: How can we discover what matters for children? Paper presented at the New Zealand Early Childhood Research Symposium, Wellington, 23 November, 2004

 

Scrivens, C, and Duncan, J (2003), ‘What decisions? Whose decisions? Issues for professional leaders in decision-making in New Zealand childcare centres’, 2003, Early Education, 33, pp 29–37

 

Sergiovanni, T (1999), Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles, Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development

 

Siraj-Blatchford, I, and Manni (2006), Effective Leadership in the Early Years Sector (ELEYS) Study – Research Report, London: Institute of Education, University of London/General Teaching Council for England. Available at:

www.gtce.org.uk

 

Siraj-Blatchford, I, Sylva, K, Muttock, S, Gilden, R, and Bell, D (2002), Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years. London: DfES

 

Solly, K (2003), What do early years leaders do to maintain and enhance the significance of the early years? A paper on a conversation with Kathryn Solly held at the Institute of Education on 22 May 2003

 

Stamopolous, E (2003), ‘Elucidating the Dilemma of P1 in Western Australian Schools: towards a solution’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(2), pp 188–217

 

Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I, and Taggart, B (2004), The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report. A Longitudinal Study Funded by the DfES 1997–2004

 

Thornton, K R (2005), Courage, Commitment and Collaboration: Notions of Leadership in the New Zealand ECE ‘Centres of Innovation’, Victoria: University of Wellington (unpublished M.Ed thesis)

 

Vandell, D L, and Wolfe, B (2000), Child Care Quality: Does it Matter and Does it Need to Be Improved? Institute for Research on Poverty Special Report no. 78, Institute for Research on Poverty, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved on 14.03.07 from

 www.wcer.wisc.edu/childcare/statements.html

 

Vroom, V, and Yago, A (1998), ‘Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leadership participation’, in Dansereau F, and Yammarino, F (eds), Leadership: the multiple-level approaches, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, pp 145–160  

 

Wallace, M (2002), ‘Modelling distributed leadership and management effectiveness: Primary school senior management teams in England and Wales’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2), pp 163–186

 

Whalley, M (2002), Early years leaders involving parents in their children’s learning, Creative Waves, Discussion Paper on Future Schools, National College for School Leadership, Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference

 

Whalley, M (2003), The Pen Green leadership centre: Developing leadership learning and growing learning communities, Paper presented at the Eighth Early Childhood Convention, Palmerston North, 22–25 September, 2003

 

Whalley, M, Whitaker, P, Wyles, G, and Harris, P (2005), An Enquiry into the Impact of a Leadership Development Programme on Leaders of Integrated Early Years Centres, Derby: Pen Green

 

Woods, P A (2004), ‘Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership’, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), pp 3–26

 

Yukl, G, and Chavez, C (2002), ‘Influence tactics and leader effectiveness’, in Neider, L L, and Schriesheim, C (eds), Leadership, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing

 

 

 

Further Bibliography

 

Ashman, C, and Green, S (2004), Managing People and Teams, London: David Fulton Publishers

Ashman, C, and Green, S (2004), Planning, Doing and Reviewing, London: David Fulton Publishers

Bass, M (2000), ‘The future of leadership in learning organisations’, Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), pp 18–40

 

Bennis, W G (2004), ‘The seven ages of the leader’, Harvard Business Review, 82(1), pp 46–53, 112

Bishop, A, and Lunn, P (2002), ‘Nursery teachers as leaders and managers: A pedagogical and subsidiary model of leadership’, Research in Education, 67, pp 13–22

 

Bloom, P J, and Bella, J (2005), ‘Investment in leadership training: The payoff for early childhood education’, Young Children, 60(1), pp 32–40

 

Carter, M (2000), ‘What do teachers need from their directors?’, Child Care Information Exchange, 136, pp 98–101

 

Cohen-Vogel, L, and Herrington, C D (2005), ‘Introduction: Teacher and Leadership Preparation and Development: No Strangers to Politics’, Educational Policy, 19(5), pp 5–17

 

Daly, M, Byers, E, and Taylor, W (2004), Early Years Management in Practice: a Handbook for Early Years Managers, London: Heinemann

 

Dubois Davey, L (2000), ‘Teaching for leadership and advocacy in early childhood: Exploring messages in a college classroom’, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 21, pp 179–184

 

Dunlop A-W (2006), ‘A focus on leadership in the pre-school sector’, Presentation based on A Literature Review of Leadership in the Early Years, Glasgow: Learning and Teaching Scotland, HMIE Pre-school Conference, Lauder College, 22 August 2006

 

Freeman, N K, and Brown, M H (2000), ‘Evaluating the child care director: The collaborative professional assessment process’, Young Children, 55(5), pp 20–6

 

Gaffney, J S, Hesbol, K, and Corso, L (2005), Is your School fit for Literacy? 10 areas of action for Principals, Naperville, ILL: Learning Point Associates

 

Geijsel F, Sleegers P, Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2003), ‘Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform’, Journal of Educational Administration, 41(3), pp 228–256

 

Harris, A (2004), ‘Distributed leadership: Leading or misleading?’, Educational Management and Administration, 32(1), pp 11–24

 

Harris, A (2002), Distributed leadership in schools: Leading or misleading?. Retrieved on 22.11.04 from

www.icponline.org/feature_articles/f14-0.2htm

 

Harris, A (2003), ‘Teacher leadership: A new orthodoxy’, in B Davies and J West-Burnham (eds), Handbook of educational leadership and management, London: Pearson Education, pp 44–50

 

Harris, A, and Lambert, L (2003), Building leadership capacity for school improvement. Retrieved on 22.11.04 from

www.ncsl.org.uk/index.cfm?pageid=nlg-nlc-resources-leadership

 

Hatherley, A, and Lee, W (2003), ‘Voices of early childhood leadership’, New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 18, pp 91–100

 

Isles-Buck, E, and Newstead, S (2003), Essential Skills for Managers of Child-centred Settings, London: David Fulton

 

Kagan, S L (1993), Leadership training for collaboration, Paper presented at the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory Regional Early Childhood Forum, October 3, 1993

 

Knapp, M S, Copland, M A, Plecki, M L, and Portin, B S (2006), Leading, Learning, and Leadership Support, A Research Report in collaboration with the Wallace Foundation, Washington, DC: University of Washington – Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved on 3.05.07 from

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html

 

Knapp, M S, Swinnerton, J A, Copland, M A, and Monpas-Huber, J (2006), Data-informed Leadership in Education, A Research Report in collaboration with the Wallace Foundation, 2006. Retrieved on 3.05.07 from

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html

 

Ministry of Education (2003), A logic model for the evaluation of Pathways to the Future – Ngä Huarahi Arataki, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education (unpublished paper)

 

Ministry of Education (2002), Pathways to the Future – Ngä Huarahi Arataki: A 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education, Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education

 

Mitchell, L (2002), Differences between community owned and privately owned early childhood education and care centres: A review of evidence, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research (unpublished paper)

 

Moss, P (2002), ‘Time to say farewell to ‘early childhood’?’, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3 (3), pp 435–438

 

Moss, P, and Petrie, P (2002), From children's services to children's spaces: Public policy, children and childhood, London: RoutledgeFalmer

 

Muijs, D, and Harris, A (2006), ‘Teacher Led School Improvement: Teacher Leadership in the UK’, Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 22, 8, pp 961–972

 

Osgood, J, and Sharp, C (2000), Developing Early Education and Childcare Services for the 21st Century, Slough: NFER

 

Osgood, J, and Stone, V (2002), Assessing the Business Skills of Early Years, Childcare and Playwork Providers, London: Department for Education and Skills

 

Payne, M (2000), Teamwork in Multi-Professional Care, London: Palgrave

 

Portin, B S, Alejano, C R, and Knapp, M S (2006), Redefining Roles, Responsibility, and Authority of School Leaders, A Research Report in collaboration with The Wallace Foundation, Washington, DC: University of Washington – Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved on 3.05.07 from

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html

 

Portin, B S, Feldman, S, and Knapp, M S (2006), Purposes, Uses, and Practices of Leadership Assessment in Education, A Research Report in collaboration with The Wallace Foundation, Washington, DC: University of Washington – Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. Retrieved on 3.05.07 from

http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/Publications.html

 

Shin, M S, Recchia, S L, Lee, S Y, Lee, Y J, and Mullarkey, L S (2004), ‘Understanding early childhood leadership: Emerging competencies in the context of relationships’, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2 (3), pp 301–16

 

Smith, M (2005), ‘Strategies for successful fellowships: Nurturing early childhood leaders’, Young Children, 60 (1), pp 12–18

 

Sotolongo, J (2004), Intensive Technical Assistance Assessment Tool, Community Systems Edition, Raleigh, NC: Smart Starts National Technical Assistance Center, 2004

 

Spillane, J, Halverson, R, and Diamond, J (2004), ‘Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2004, 36 (1), pp 3–34

 

Teddlie, C, and Reynolds, D (2000), ‘The processes of school effectiveness’, in Teddlie, C, and Reynolds, D (eds), The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research, pp 134–159, London: Falmer Press

 

Van Tassel Baska, J, and Stambaugh, T (eds) (2007), Overlooked Gems: A National Perspective on Low-Income Promising Learners, Conference Proceedings, Washington: National Association for Gifted Children

 

Waniganayake, M, Morda, R, and Kapsalakis, A (2000), ‘Leadership in child care centres: Is it just another job?’, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25 (1) pp 13–19